RBS Rights Issue Litigation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{cn}}High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not covered by [[legal advice privilege]], as the employees in question did not form part of the “client" for {{tag|privilege}} purposes
{{cn}}High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not covered by [[legal advice privilege]], as the employees in question did not form part of the “client” for {{tag|privilege}} purposes


{{Seealso}}
{{Seealso}}

Revision as of 23:03, 17 March 2020

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
JCLR.png
A shelf in the JC’s law library yesterday
Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |

Click ᐅ to expand:
Case notes

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

High Court has applied the much-criticised Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers No 5 to find that interviews conducted by a bank's solicitors with its employees were not covered by legal advice privilege, as the employees in question did not form part of the “client” for privilege purposes

See also

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=RBS_Rights_Issue_Litigation&oldid=41719"